Abstract:Despite its growing popularity in books, film, games, fashion, and décor, a suitable definition for steampunk remains elusive. Debates in online forums seek to arrive at a cogent definition, ranging from narrowly restricting and exclusionary definitions, to uselessly inclusive indefinitions. The difficulty in defining steampunk stems from the evolution of the term as a literary sub-genre of science fiction (SF) to a sub-culture of Goth fashion, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) arts and crafts movements, and more recently, as ideological counter-culture. Accordingly, defining steampunk unilaterally is challenged by what aspect of steampunk culture is being defined.
Even the seminal steampunk texts of K.W. Jeter, Tim Powers, and James Blaylock lack strong affinities. In his review of Tachyon’s Steampunk anthology, Rob Latham observes a “wide range of tonal and ideological possibilities” in the book’s twelve short stories and novellas originally published between 1985 and 2007 (347). Steampunk works share a fantastic aesthetic that separates steampunk from neo-Victorian writing or just alternate history. Instead of viewing steampunk as a genre, steampunk might be considered an expression of features, which when combined, constitute a style or aesthetic surface. An understanding of steampunk as an aesthetic permits the requisite flexibility to discuss its diverse expressions.
Employing an evidence-based, exploratory approach, this study identifies three components of the steampunk aesthetic: neo-Victorianism, technofantasy, and retrofuturism. Unlike attempts to list ostensibly common themes or archetypes of steampunk, or simply catalogue recurring motifs or settings, this study will argue that these three components are found in the majority of steampunk works. For the purposes of concision, this study restricts the exploration to literary works, demonstrating how the components of neo-victorianism, technofantasy and retrofuturism are best suited for defining steampunk, inclusively accommodating a variety of steampunk narratives while exclusively drawing boundaries to avoid rendering the term meaningless.

Examining committee members and their departments:Hart, Jonathan (Comparative Literature, English and Film Studies)Sinnema, Peter (English and Film Studies)Verdiccio, Massimo (Comparative Literature)Wharton, Thomas (English and Film Studies)Tschofen, Monique (Communication and Culture, Ryerson)